Clive Palmer v Mark McGowan as it happened: McGowan cross-examination a surreal sight

Huge moments and big decisions made during WA’s pandemic journey in 2020 were scrutinised at a microscopic level.

The “health advice” the WA public took as gospel when it came to the hard borders at that time was shown to have undergone some degree of government interpretation.

But Mr McGowan was defiant that sticking by the hard border was the correct thing to do and that all the advice he received said it was an effective tool.

Frustratingly for him, he was given little opportunity to provide context for his decisions during cross-examination.

At a normal press conference he would launch into a spiel about how the health outcomes of Western Australians were better than anywhere else in the world in terms of COVID-19 and how the state’s economy was performing better.

Very little of this counts during this case, however.

A key pillar of Mr McGowan’s cross-claim is that Mr Palmer incorrectly labelled him a liar by telling the public the hard border was necessary.

Mr Palmer’s defence only needs to prove that Mr McGowan lied, on specific occasions, that the hard border was necessary because of health advice.

Ironically, a case of COVID-19 has now drawn out the trial by another day meaning Mr McGowan must stay in Sydney for longer.

With COVID-19 commentary out the way, the trial will move to the Balmoral South legislation that blocked any ability by Mr Palmer to seek billions in compensation from WA, which the state agreement his company signed with the state government could have theoretically allowed.

We’re also expecting text messages between Mr Quigley and Mr McGowan in the lead-up to the legislation being introduced to be revealed to the court.

Tune in to WAtoday on Wednesday 6.30am WA time to read the rest of Mr McGowan’s evidence as well as WA Attorney-General John Quigley’s. See you then.

The enemy of the state comment was made at a press conference on July 31, 2020.

Mr Gray suggested to Mr McGowan it was a planned comment but Mr McGowan denied this and said he often came up with phrases on the spot during press conferences.

Mr Gray also put it to Mr McGowan he used the phrase knowing that Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin had used a similar phrase, “enemy of the people”.

Mr McGowan conceded it was a damning statement, but said, “I was not thinking about Joe Stalin when I said it”.

Mr Gray says it was unbelievable that Mr McGowan was not thinking of Stalin given he was a “keen student of modern history” and “leader of the Australian Labor Party”.

The lawyer questions whether the Premier used “cheap shots” and called Mr Palmer a “jerk” to denigrate him and improve the Premier’s political standing.

Mr McGowan says said it wasn’t for political advantage but was to encourage Mr Palmer to rethink his high court border challenge.

Mr Gray is incredulous.

“By telling him to stop being a jerk? You thought that might appeal to his higher sense of duty?”

“He wanted to come to WA to promote hydroxychloroquine as some sort of cure for COVID,” Mr McGowan said at the time.

“Not only is it not a cure, it’s dangerous.”

During previous evidence, Mr Palmer said Mr McGowan’s comments painted him as a drug dealer.

Mr Palmer’s lawyer Peter Gray SC has put it to Mr McGowan that the mining magnate was not coming to the state to promote the drug, because he was merely donating it to the Australian Government’s medical stockpile.

For about 10 minutes Mr Gray asked Mr McGowan to find where in the advice it said the hard border was necessary.

In a tense exchange, Mr Gray then accused Mr McGowan of lying to the public that the hard border was necessary based on the health advice.

“Every time you made such a public statement that the hard border was necessary because of the medical advice you had, they were knowingly false,” Mr Gray said.

“No,” Mr McGowan responded.

“Every time you said it – and you said it many times – you were lying, weren’t you?” Mr Gray said.

“No,” Mr McGowan said.

Court resumes at 11.15am WST.

“It was clearly the right course of action,” he says.

Mr McGowan has told the court the reason for the cross-claim was to reduce any financial impact on the state if Mr Palmer’s original defamation claim was successful.

Effectively, he means one lot of damages would help to cancel out the other.

Mr Gray put it to Mr McGowan that this was a gamble of public funds and “dishonourable” behaviour.

“No, I don’t agree,” Mr McGowan says.